User talk:Small Bayonet

Welcome!

Hello, Small Bayonet, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to Law and Justice does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the Questions page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Below are a few other good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Simplified Manual of Style
• Task Center – need some ideas of what kind of things need doing? Go here.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  (t · c) buidhe 17:12, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

This edit summary[1] is unacceptable. It doesn't matter what nationality an editor has, only what the sources say. The English word "nationalist" is not an exact synonym of Polish word nacjonalista as I explained here.[2] and the party is frequently described as "nationalist" in scholarly sources[3] There is no real contestation in scholarly sources that PiS is a right-wing party[4] and that's the consensus on the talk page[5] You cannot unilaterally overturn such a consensus, although you could start a discussion about it. (t · c) buidhe 22:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

What? I see that you didn't even read these articles on Google Scholar. They say, that POLISH RULING PARTY IS ACTING SO ONLY TOWARDS ILLEGAL REFUGEES. It isn't nationalist at all. Also, polish scholars in 99% agree, that this party is not nationalist! I do not care about your american "professors", who doesn't even live in poland and think, that party is nationalist only beacause of that fact. Meanwhile - many facts show, that this party IS NOT NATIONALIST. 1. Party itself is against nationalism, 2. PiS is associated with sionist Chabad Lubavich (what surely doesn't show their nationalist nature), 3. Is supporting american interests, even against Poland's interests, it's even called in some american media ,,The USA's Carrier in Europe". Party of course supports integration within the union, it supports integration within NATO. I also reccommend you to read it: https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/244836. It's written BY A POLE, and there is no mention about PiS. Every proffesional polish scientist denies the fact, that pis is ,,nationalist". Also - if you wouldn't know - if there are any nationalists in PiS, they are marginalized, nationalist part of PiS left it in 2012, creating ,,Soldarna Polska". So PiS isn't nationalist, the only people, who call it so, are foreigners who know nothing about situation in Poland, and they call it only beacause of a fact, that it didn't let ILLEGAL refugees get in. Also, I don't know do you know it - PiS at the time welcomed MILION ukrainian refugees. Tell me then - would nationalist party do so? Also, even western scholars sometimes admit, that PiS is FIGHTING with nationalists. The only nationalist party in Poland is ,,Konfederacja". ~~

This is a total WP:OR argument. Your own opinion about what nationalism is cannot override the fact that *reliable sources describe PiS as nationalist*. Sources are not reliable or unreliable based on nationality of the authors. (t · c) buidhe 09:35, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Of course, that nationality is important. If you would make for example an article about Afghanistan - would you appreciate Afghani sources more, or maybe western ones? Those "sources" called it nationalist only beacause ONE THING that the goverment did. Meanwhile every serious polish political scientist will say, that IT ISN'T NATIONALIST. Also - if you would write in google scholar ,,Polish Nationalism", maybe you would be educated more and you would know more, than if you will read A GUARDIAN ARTICLE. They called it nationalist only beacause one thing, meanwhile many, many other things show, that the party isn't nationalist. Again - tell me - what source is more reliable - from a polish proffessor, of from an american one, who doesn't differ Sanacja from Endecja?

Nationalism is a pretty big tent. Variants of both Sanacja and Endecja can be considered nationalist. PiS borrows from both political traditions, as well as Communist policies. As commented by historian Tom Junes, Ideologically, however, Kaczynski and PiS are closer to the nationalism of Polish statesman Roman Dmowski, though without the anti-Semitism of the National Democracy movement he co-founded in the late-19th Century — and with a strong aversion to Russia. Finally, while Kaczynski and PiS channelled anti-communist sentiments of 1990s into a crusade against “late post-communism”, their policies to “weed out” the remnants of the “old order” in the judiciary and other state institutions bear striking similarity to the purges of the communist era. [6] (t · c) buidhe 10:00, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Uh... No. Sanacja definitely cannot be defined as a nationalist. It shows only a lack of knowledge - Sanacja proposed to make a great federation, based on Rzeczpospolita, meanwhile endecja proposed to incorporate and peacfully polonise the inhabitants of Kresy. Also - the fact, that PiS have some policies NATIONALIST, doesn't make them nationalist as a whole. As I said before - they cannot be defined so.

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

(t · c) buidhe 10:32, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Natalka Snyadanko moved to draftspace

An article you recently created, Natalka Snyadanko, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

April 2021

Hello, I'm Pipsally. I noticed that you recently removed content from Law and Justice without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use your sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Pipsally (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

May 2021

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Strasserism. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 15:56, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Strasserism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:13, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:Natalka Snyadanko

Hello, Small Bayonet. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Natalka Snyadanko, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it. You may request userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 16:01, 22 July 2021 (UTC)